The Evolution of Morality

[biggles53]

Continuing my scenario from bhmte's post, evolution was a perfect way for God to create and adapt living forms. Unfortunately, when you have a process designed to further diversity and the need to adapt you have the problem of that system creating errors. It seems that a new study being done by Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver hypothesizes cancer is ancient and could possibly be in an ancient phenotype that actually goes back possibly 1.6 billion years. They claim:

Because it fulfills absolutely crucial functions during the early stages of embryo development," Davies explains. "Genes that are active in the embryo and normally dormant thereafter are found to be switched back on in cancer. These same genes are the 'ancient' ones, deep in the tree of multicellular life."

New theory uncovers cancer's deep evolutionary roots

So due to a crucial function during the early stages of embryo development cancer can be triggered. So God does not give cancer to anyone, but due to a possible necessary function in embryo development it came about.


Read more at: New theory uncovers cancer's deep evolutionary roots

So......your argument would be that your perfect god made some mistakes...??

 

[mzungu]

Continuing my scenario from bhmte's post, evolution was a perfect way for God to create and adapt living forms. Unfortunately, when you have a process designed to further diversity and the need to adapt you have the problem of that system creating errors. It seems that a new study being done by Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver hypothesizes cancer is ancient and could possibly be in an ancient phenotype that actually goes back possibly 1.6 billion years. They claim:

Because it fulfills absolutely crucial functions during the early stages of embryo development," Davies explains. "Genes that are active in the embryo and normally dormant thereafter are found to be switched back on in cancer. These same genes are the 'ancient' ones, deep in the tree of multicellular life."

New theory uncovers cancer's deep evolutionary roots

So due to a crucial function during the early stages of embryo development cancer can be triggered. So God does not give cancer to anyone, but due to a possible necessary function in embryo development it came about.


Read more at: New theory uncovers cancer's deep evolutionary roots

I gather you accept Evolution

 

[AV1611VET]

I gather you accept Evolution

To a point.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Whoa, dang. That's the most definite timeline I've heard.

So you're saying if these events do not come to pass within the next 6-7 years, your beliefs are false?

No not at all. The Bible teaches that the lights in the Heavens are for signs and seasons, but let's be honest, not many of us can read the signs. In Johns book of revelation, it tells us about the signs for mid trib. It explains a woman dressed in the Sun with the Moon at her feet and 12 stars as a crown above her head. It also goes on to say about the dragon who awaits the birth to devour him. If you look at a star chart for 2017, Virgo is aligned perfectly with the sun above her, the moon at her feet and 12 stars above her head. I actually wound it backwards and forwards thousands of years, but it didn't occur again. Drago is also waiting there between the legs of Virgo. The other interesting this is the planet Jupiter (King planet) enters the womb area of Virgo at that time. It retro orbits around the womb for 9 months and then exits between virgos legs. This happens sept-oct 2017. I used stellarium to view it and it's free. If the timing is not correct, then I could have misinterpreted the timeline with the trib, or maybe I'm looking at the wrong meaning. I'm only human after all.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Sure you can. You know good and well you wouldn't intentionally give eight year olds leukemia. This makes your morality superior to your invisible sky daddy, as well.

Your statement is flawed. You are insinuating that the Creator gave the cancer to children. Where did you get that knowledge from? It is so very simple and the full explanation is given in Genesis, through sin, death entered the world. Later in the bible it says how we must remove the corruptible (body) and clothe in incorruptible (spirit). These bodies are not linked to God any more, only the Soul is. These are known to be times for testing faith, we were warned about this thousands of years ago. Jesus said to his disciples that they are blessed, they ate and talked directly with the Son of God, yet their faith was small. He then added how blessed they will be in the future, who believe, without living with the Son of God. I fail to see how atheist get so confused over this issue, they ask the same question over and over and over again. Evil has been cast down to the Earth "Woe to the Earth" and that evil is in the form of the very first created being. He is the highest Archangel, above all other Angels in rank. Even Michael didn't rebuke him using his own name, he said he rebukes Lucifer in the name of Jesus, who does have authority over him. You have to remember that God is merciful. Let me explain that too. We aren't just considering Humans here, there are millions of Heavenly beings too. A third have gone astray with Lucifer, but two thirds have remained loyal. God could have destroyed all those Angels, but the remaining would then worship in fear, not choice/love. Man made his own choice through free will, as did many Angels. God doesn't just intervene and wipe them out, there are lessons to be learned. So, those who have faith on Earth (humans) will deserve everlasting life. He sacrificed his only Son to give us that gift, so if we can't accept his son, we get nothing. Simple as. It's not all about good/bad, it's about choice. When the time is right, God will intervene and wipe out many humans and definitely the Angels who made the wrong choice. Apart from Lucifer, he will get a second chance to tempt the remaining humans before being killed. Nobody at that time will doubt that without God there is no life, everything degrades and dies. He even tells us the Universe and Earth will die away which is true.
Evolution is a system which relies heavily on death, not life. It requires old species to die out and let the new ones through. The better adapted are given priority. This is how evolution controls things. If death is so natural and beneficial, we should have adapted by now to realise this and accept it with ease. We should celebrate and cheer when someone dies because the newer genes now have priority. I don't know about you but I find it very painful when a loved one dies. It tears me apart and I feel no joy. It's like deep down, we know it shouldn't happen.

 

[Black Akuma]

The Enter button won't bite you, nutty.

 

[nuttypiglet]

It all depends on what is meant by reality. Ask a quantum physicist and you may be shocked to discover that reality is a totally different thing to what you perceive it to be.

"Nothing Exists but atoms and the void" Democritus. 460 BC

Well the quantum field of possibilities is interesting but still greatly not understood. What I find amazing is quantum entanglement. How can two particles communicate to one another instantly across the Universe when nothing can be faster than light? It would seem to give the impression that our Universe is an illusion.

 

[Black Akuma]

Evolution is a system which relies heavily on death, not life

It relies on both. If there's no new life, evolution can't happen.

The better adapted are given priority.

The better adapted are more fit for their environment and they tend to survive better than organisms that aren't.

We should celebrate and cheer when someone dies because the newer genes now have priority.

Evolution is not a philosophy that says anything about we should or should not react in any given situation.

I don't know about you but I find it very painful when a loved one dies. It tears me apart and I feel no joy.

Why? To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, right? Theyre free from pain. You should be happy. In fact, you should be downright ecstatic. You know you're going to see them again, right? It's basically just like a friend going away for a while. And since you'll both be living or eternity, the time you won't be able to see him is so insignificant that it can't be measured. So why be sad?

 

[mzungu]

Well the quantum field of possibilities is interesting but still greatly not understood. What I find amazing is quantum entanglement. How can two particles communicate to one another instantly across the Universe when nothing can be faster than light? It would seem to give the impression that our Universe is an illusion.

Indeed; the quantum world is at best weird. However science uses the fruits of QM for all manner of things. Although quantum entanglement is not yet fully understood; this by no means it never will as science is an ongoing quest for knowledge.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So......your argument would be that your perfect god made some mistakes...??

My argument is that God allowed life to flow within a certain parameter to allow for adaptation and diversity. In doing so error's within that parameter could happen, which is sometimes necessary for adaptations to be useful.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I gather you accept Evolution

I accept evolution as defined.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your statement is flawed. You are insinuating that the Creator gave the cancer to children.

A mother is standing at the edge of her unfenced lawn closest to a busy highway. She is watching her 2 year old play in that yard. After a while, the toddler hears and sees the cars rushing down the highway at breakneck speeds. Being curious, the toddler begins walk towards the highway. The mother watches as her child walks right past her and is struck by a car on the highway. The mother does nothing to stop it.

Is the mother culpable for the death of her child?

Evolution is a system which relies heavily on death, not life. It requires old species to die out and let the new ones through. The better adapted are given priority. This is how evolution controls things. If death is so natural and beneficial, we should have adapted by now to realise this and accept it with ease. We should celebrate and cheer when someone dies because the newer genes now have priority. I don't know about you but I find it very painful when a loved one dies. It tears me apart and I feel no joy. It's like deep down, we know it shouldn't happen.

There is no reason why natural should equate to good. You are turning an Is into and Ought, a mistake that Hume wrote about:

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yowza, this thread does grow quick.

Many different conversations going on in this thread.

Well, different types of eyes could be developing in different ways simultaneously, and would all have evolved for roughly the same amount of time, at different rates. And there isn't necessarily anything that would prevent two separate species from developing similar traits independent of any relation. I would have to check out the fossil record for types of eyes from the earliest simplest to the earliest complex.

Here is a good source of information. It is the article that I was talking about when I mentioned the 1/2 million years for evolving eyes.

The available fossil record illustrates that the Cambrian explosion spawned the simultaneous birth of the principal invertebrate compound eye and the vertebrate camera-style eye. These eyes usually are just visible as dark imprints with no detailed structures preserved. This report on the compound eyes of Cindarella, showing the large size of ommatidial lens facets (60–140 μm, Fig. 1b, c) and a large number of ommatidia (over 2000), indicates that it had extraordinary vision similar to that of living forms. Although we cannot know exactly how much organization in cellular function or morphology occurred in the Cambrian, this extraordinary visual surface confirms the occurrence of highly developed vision in the early Cambrian. Compound eyes seem to have evolved much more rapidly than other eye-types, from eyespots to complicated, advanced eyes, especially in arthropods. A monophyletic origin of the metazoan eye is strongly supported since Pax6 is involved in eye development in all bilaterian phyla33. If the metazoan eye is indeed monophyletic, then the time required for a simple eye to evolve within these different eye-types might be remarkably short. This hypothesis has been tested using a conceptual model involving a linear series of eyes, arranged from simple to complex, and as mathematically predicted by Nilsson and Pelger34, a patch of light-sensitive epithelial tissue could evolve by natural selection into a camera eye within only about 364 000 generations, in other words in less than half a million years. Thus compound eyes show the quickest rate of evolution during the early stages of eye evolution as the fossil record shows that evolution of the eye into a highly advanced compound eye was amazingly rapid22, 30, 35, 36, 37. The fossil record also indicates that image-forming eyes possessing a high resolution image probably evolved first in the arthropods due to the numerous ommatidia. In most phyla, although simple photoreception is almost universally present, no visional eyes evolved, although eyes evolved later in Annelida, Onychophora, Mollusca, and Chordata.
Complexity and diversity of eyes in Early Cambrian ecosystems : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

I will note as well there have been other scientists that disagree that it would only take 364,000 generations.

For my part, I would discuss my views regarding behavior, why I held them, and why I felt they were superior. I would set goals based on those views and then evaluate what the best way to achieve them would be. Others would be invited to share their views as well. We debate and convince and compromise until the objectively best solutions are determined.

Discuss it with whom? Unless, there was some meeting where all people on earth came together and evaluated behavior and determined what was superior we have no way to convey your views or views of others into working solutions that create an objective or universal shared view.

Creatures living in groups would be aware that cooperation is something that can help them, on some level. That would be part of their awareness of what is required for their own survival. They aren't necessarily consciously thinking long-term, multi-generational species survival. But their behavior will be steered towards that by survival pressures, like any other trait.

I think you agree that the most pressing and crucial trait is the self preservation trait and that would counter act any self sacrifice that one would take. It is counter to the whole system of survival as the main drive of selection. IF someone sacrifices themselves, they leave their family without a man to fend for them. The whole selfish gene thing is in my opinion the greatest argument against evolved morality.

Hold on, we don't know that about neanderthals. Just because not every individual thinks specifically in terms of far-reaching genetic survival of the species as a whole, doesn't mean creatures don't value others of their own species on some level. It doesn't even need to be a conscious thought.

That is easy to say today in our era. We don't have to worry about food, we just go to the market. We make money enough to help those less fortunate. To use our human experiences as a model for those in the past is faulty. Food had to be hunted for and gathered. Food was not always abundant and the sick or dying would hinder the prospect of moving quickly to keep up with herds of their food source. Self preservation would not be as simple and survival could depend on whether you were strong and able to provide for yourself and your family. If you were to put your health or body in jeopardy you were risking the well being of your family as well.

I think humans do have a general set of behaviors across the board. There are anomalies as you would expect, but by and large there are shared values - family, aversion to killing, etc. You posted a set of 10 Commandments earlier in this thread and pointed out how humans generally keep to the ones that aren't specifically related to worshiping the christian God - killing, lying, stealing, cheating are all things that create strife and instability, and it makes sense for creatures like us to dislike them. To me, that speaks more to these shared behaviors being natural traits rather than supernaturally imbued. If they are supernatural, it would suggest God cares more about people getting along than He does about what they think of Him, or whether they think of Him at all.

Creatures like us are not like the creatures of the past. When looking back do we see that there would be some trait that could bring about the concept that stealing was wrong? I mean yes, we see chimps punishing one of their own for stealing food, but punishment is our definition and they could have simply got angry at the one stealing the food and acted upon the anger. Punishment would have to be seen as we see it for this to be true and we don't know if it is in this case. The anger punishes the wrong doer but does it persuade the wrong doer that what they have done is wrong, or does it make the wrong doer more careful not to be caught next time? Did the other members that were showing their anger do so because they believed it wrong to steal food and that they themselves would not steal food, or were they just acting out their anger on the one that got caught. We can not assign our own definitions and motivations on creatures that can not communicate their own motivations for doing what they do. We tend to anthropomorphize.

Do you believe miracles are undetectable? That suspensions of natural law have no impact in the world?

I don't believe that all supernatural actions are miracles. Some are and some are just actions that are either executed by or guided by the power of God or the "super" natural aspects of Him. A level higher than natural. However, the point is that anything that we would find in nature would be considered nature. So if something doesn't fit within a theory it is an anomaly of said theory.

Dunno - same way God created Himself?

Within the Christian worldview God is not a Created being. He is an eternal being. Yep, and you are right I don't know what that entails.

Universal laws by definition could only be violated supernaturally.

We see this even in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Law of Relativity. So we explain those things that are anomalies naturalistically even if they do not "fit" into the laws perfectly. So there would be nothing that you could point to, just as it is now that you can not say is outside of the natural world.

Fair enough. I've no reason to assume the supernatural is involved at any level, but I'll remain open to the possibility that it is.

Ok.

Magic, supernatural, specially created, divinely forged, etc. Don't believe in it. I think stuff can be great without it.

You do believe that, however your belief if I am correct is wrong. You can accept that things are just the way even if they appear designed but that is your choice. You have to accept something that appears to be more than a chance circumstance or coincidence, something that gives every indication that it was designed to be just the way it is as something that just so happened to be the way it happened. That goes counter to your usual standard of assessing your world from what I gather from our conversations.

Do you think that if any of these parameters were off, God could not have created life, or kept the universe from collapsing, etc?

I think God could do what God wanted to do and this is what God wanted to do.

There are certainly gaps in human knowledge. Lightning was once attributed to various gods, disease to demons. If I'd lived in a time where those misconceptions were widely accepted as truth, would I be correct in doing the same? Wouldn't it be more honest to admit I don't know the cause rather than accepting an incorrect explanation? An all-powerful deity makes a very convenient explanation for anything we don't understand, but is it the correct one?

It isn't that we don't understand it, we do. It is that as a naturalistic worldview, it is not acceptable to allow the supernatural in our explanations. We know the parameters are such that life could not have formed as we know it on earth. We know that if such a small change as the weight of a grain of sand was present or absent from the materials in creating the universe it would have collapsed upon itself or never formed at all. We understand that is a fact. It is how we explain that finding that is at issue.

Fair enough. I would modify it to 'the supernatural is not evidently required'.

Ok, but I find that is dismissing what we know to remain consistent within your own worldview. You have to dismiss that there is no law of physics that can explain the fine tuning of our universe.

Question - are any of these precise measurements you've brought up the reason you became convinced of God's existence?

This is one piece of evidence that gives a lot of support to the existence of God. It is just one piece among multitudes of evidence for me.

But does faith take precedence over reason and evidence? Should it ever?

Reason no, evidence perhaps. Evidence changes with new evidence at times.

I've heard people claim both. Neither one seems like it would warrant it, personally.

Warrant what?

Free will is an aspect of intelligence, which I believe evolved. If you're going to hit me with the 'if we evolved naturally free will is an illusion because it's constrained by our biology' argument, I'll head that one off right now by pointing out that free will is necessarily constrained by reality whatever its origin happens to be - we can't 'will' ourselves to do certain things, but this doesn't mean free will doesn't exist.

You believe intelligence evolved but you don't have evidence that shows it, you believe that free will exists even though are brains are hard wired to think the way they think? I'm somewhat confused here.

Gonna cover the last bit in 2nd post, since its a lot of questions.

OK thanks.

 

[biggles53]

My argument is that God allowed life to flow within a certain parameter to allow for adaptation and diversity. In doing so error's within that parameter could happen, which is sometimes necessary for adaptations to be useful.

And your god is supposed to be omniscient, isn't it...?

So, either it knew what would happen as a result of its decision regarding life, in which case it is entirely responsible for the horrible suffering that cancer brings......OR, it had no idea at all, in which case its omniscience evaporates......OR, it doesn't exist and what we see is exactly as we would expect if there were no gods.......

 

[EternalDragon]

And your god is supposed to be omniscient, isn't it...?

So, either it knew what would happen as a result of its decision regarding life, in which case it is entirely responsible for the horrible suffering that cancer brings......OR, it had no idea at all, in which case its omniscience evaporates......OR, it doesn't exist and what we see is exactly as we would expect if there were no gods.......

Cancer is a result of Adam's sin. No need to put any blame on God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Cancer is a result of Adam's sin.

Since when do we torture children with years of agonizing paing, ending with their death, because of what their great, great, great, grandparents did? Would it be moral to let these children suffer when we could cure their cancer with a wave of our hand?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And your god is supposed to be omniscient, isn't it...?

So, either it knew what would happen as a result of its decision regarding life, in which case it is entirely responsible for the horrible suffering that cancer brings......OR, it had no idea at all, in which case its omniscience evaporates......OR, it doesn't exist and what we see is exactly as we would expect if there were no gods.......

I think that we can both claim that cancer is evil can we not? Evil is a necessary opposite to be able to experience good. Illness is the lack of wellness which is a natural occurring phenomenon in life and death. Life and death are necessary elements in a world designed for humanity.

God made the best possible world to allow for the experience and the knowledge of good and evil, love and hate, good health and bad. If we are to be allowed to choose anything at all we have to have those choices and to have those choices there are natural occurring phenomenon that result from the necessity of choice.

 

[Golan]

I gather you accept Evolution?

I accept evolution as defined.

Then you are not a creationist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you are not a creationist.

Uhhh, yes I am.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uhhh, yes I am.

That would be like a Geocentrist believing that the Earth moves about the Sun. They contradict each other.